IF the Clintons had earned all of this cash (reportedly in the tens of millions of dollars) AFTER they BOTH were out of political office,NOONE would probably care.

They have BOTH been out of office since her stint as Secretary of State ended in 2013...

So all that cash was paid to Bill and Hillary just for giving a speech?Not because she was Secretary of State nor because she (and they) knew she would be running for president?

If the exact same thing had been done by someone like Bush, Trump, Romney, etc., you would have no problem with it?

I'll agree that they got paid a lot of money for a speech, but it is what it is... plenty of people get paid a lot of money for giving speeches. What kind of limits do you think should be imposed on the amount of money one is paid for giving a speech?

You completely ignored my question.

In your initial questions, you are simply expressing your beliefs, of which neither has any proof surfacing whatsoever. For the next question, I earlier stated that plenty of people get paid a lot of money for making speeches, and obviously I don't have a problem with it. Good for them. Satisfied?

You always seem to have a problem with the money other people make... as examples, in the past you've had problems with salaries teachers make, along with salaries of governmental (municipal) types... both of which you had the opportunity to choose as careers and did not.

So here are two questions for you:

1) What kind of limits do you think should be imposed upon "speech givers" and how would you implement them?

2) Why do you worry so much about what other people earn?

Still won't answer the simple question I asked. All I ever want to know is are the standards equally applied to all.

It is pretty obvious money is the number one problem facing US politics today.If you want people to answer your questions, the polite thing to do is answer their questions, Not answer a question with a question.

Never mind. Typical response from you. I should have known better.

No, I don't believe all that money was paid to Bill & Hilary is for any reason other than that is what they require to come and give a speech. The rate is only set by what the market will bear.

Banks wrote:No, I don't believe all that money was paid to Bill & Hilary is for any reason other than that is what they require to come and give a speech. The rate is only set by what the market will bear.

You can believe whatever you like.

However, I am quite sure all that cash, for all those speeches and "contributions" to the Clinton Foundation had alot to do with why Hillary lost. Take the cash away, and maybe the outcome would have been different.

Bohannon wrote:NYNY, care to do a bit of an analysis of the Trump Foundation vs the Clinton Foundation re good done with money collected?

I would be happy to read any analysis you would like to post.

While you are doing all of your analyzing, make sure to look at both the sources of the money as wellas how the money was spent. You know, like Chelsea's wedding, Chelsea's apartment, Bill's bimbos, salaries and admin expenses,etc.

I'm quite sure they are both conflicted.

Willing to bet, the Clinton's were much better at raising all of those "charitable"contributions from all those foreign governments and strongmen.

Banks wrote:No, I don't believe all that money was paid to Bill & Hilary is for any reason other than that is what they require to come and give a speech. The rate is only set by what the market will bear.

You can believe whatever you like.

However, I am quite sure all that cash, for all those speeches and "contributions" to the Clinton Foundation had alot to do with why Hillary lost. Take the cash away, and maybe the outcome would have been different.

NewYork, New York wrote:If you want people to answer your questions, the polite thing to do is answer their questions, Not answer a question with a question.

I'm politely waiting for you to answer my questions:

Banks wrote:1) What kind of limits do you think should be imposed upon "speech givers" and how would you implement them?

Bohannon wrote:NYNY, care to do a bit of an analysis of the Trump Foundation vs the Clinton Foundation re good done with money collected?

I would be happy to read any analysis you would like to post.

While you are doing all of your analyzing, make sure to look at both the sources of the money as wellas how the money was spent. You know, like Chelsea's wedding, Chelsea's apartment, Bill's bimbos, salaries and admin expenses,etc.

I'm quite sure they are both conflicted.

Willing to bet, the Clinton's were much better at raising all of those "charitable"contributions from all those foreign governments and strongmen.

Bohannon wrote:NYNY, care to do a bit of an analysis of the Trump Foundation vs the Clinton Foundation re good done with money collected?

I would be happy to read any analysis you would like to post.

While you are doing all of your analyzing, make sure to look at both the sources of the money as wellas how the money was spent. You know, like Chelsea's wedding, Chelsea's apartment, Bill's bimbos, salaries and admin expenses,etc.

I'm quite sure they are both conflicted.

Willing to bet, the Clinton's were much better at raising all of those "charitable"contributions from all those foreign governments and strongmen.

So, your answer is "no". I'm not surprised.

NO? Where is the analysis? Can I at least see it before you decide what my answer will be?

Patrick Marley and Bill Glauber wrote:[Green party candidate Jill] Stein and Reform Party candidate Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente separately filed recount requests late Friday in Wisconsin — the state's first ever for a presidential race — on the final day they were able to do so. As liberals raised fears about hacked voting machines, Stein has raised more than $5 million to pay for recounts here and in Michigan and Pennsylvania, where recount deadlines are next week.

You told everyone I was on your "not a nice person so I blocked you " list...fibbing again?

Please show me where I said I did that. To date there are only two (perhaps one, lol) that I have blocked; cali guy and vidor. You are really having to get nit-picky to try to get at me these days aren't you?